Which best contrasts the difference between a mastery-approach goal and a performance-approach goal?

The debate about which types of achievement goals promote optimal motivation continues, and it centers on whether an individual is optimally motivated by exclusively pursuing mastery goals or by pursuing mastery goals in some combination with performance goals (e.g., Harackiewicz, Barron, Pintrich, Elliot, & Thrash, 2002a; Kaplan & Middleton, 2002; Midgley, Kaplan, & Middleton, 2001). In prior work, we have referred to the respective positions in this debate as the mastery goal perspective versus the multiple goal perspective (Barron and Harackiewicz, 2000, Barron and Harackiewicz, 2001).1 Although both positions are in agreement about the adaptive consequences of pursuing mastery goals (where one's reason for achievement behavior is to develop ability), the debate concerns the additional benefits of pursuing performance goals (where one's reason for achievement behavior is to demonstrate ability compared to others).

Early theorizing and research strongly supported the mastery goal perspective (e.g., Ames, 1992; Dweck, 1986), with mastery goals linked to a variety of adaptive achievement behaviors (such as persistence, challenge seeking, and positive attitudes towards learning) and performance goals to maladaptive behaviors (such as withdrawal, challenge-avoidance, and superficial learning strategies). However, other theorists have noted limitations of early goal research, and argued that optimal motivation may come through multiple goal pursuit (e.g., see Barron & Harackiewicz, 2001; Harackiewicz et al., 2002a; Pintrich, 2000). For example, one important development in achievement goal research has involved further refinement of mastery and performance goal measures, moving beyond two-factor achievement goal models that only distinguish between mastery and performance goals. Specifically, Elliot and his colleagues (e.g., Elliot & Church, 1997; Elliot & Harackiewicz, 1996) demonstrated the importance of a three-factor achievement goal model that, in addition to mastery goals, further differentiated two types of performance goals: performance-approach goals (where one's focus is to try to outperform others) and performance-avoidance goals (where one's focus is to avoid performing poorly compared to others). Research distinguishing between these two types of performance goals revealed that maladaptive outcomes were most associated with performance-avoidance goals, whereas a variety of adaptive outcomes were associated with performance-approach goals (see Elliot, 1999; Harackiewicz et al., 2002a; Rawsthorne & Elliot, 1999). More recently, the approach-avoidance distinction has been applied to further differentiate two types of mastery goals (e.g., Elliot & McGregor, 2001), with maladaptive outcomes associated with mastery-avoidance goals and adaptive outcomes with mastery approach goals. Thus, research distinguishing between approach vs. avoidance themes in achievement goals suggests adaptive findings for goals focused on approach-related, motivational themes (whether mastery-approach or performance-approach).

However, despite the emerging research findings linking positive outcomes to performance-approach goals, Midgley et al. (2001) recently questioned whether performance-approach goals are adaptive. In particular, they raised a number of important questions about performance-approach goals: good for what, for whom, under what circumstances, and at what cost? Each of these questions provides an important framework for evaluating prior achievement goal research as well as motivating directions for future research. The current study, like much of our prior work, is motivated by these important questions.

For example, in our own work in which we have documented positive effects of performance-approach goals (Harackiewicz, Barron, Carter, Lehto, & Elliot, 1997; Barron, Schwab, & Harackiewicz, 1999; Harackiewicz, Barron, Tauer, Carter, & Elliot, 2000; Harackiewicz, Barron, Tauer, & Elliot, 2002b), we have always been careful to note that we addressed these questions by assessing goals for a particular type of student (specifically, college students) in a particular type of classroom environment (specifically, introductory lecture courses) evaluating particular educational outcomes (specifically, students’ interest and graded performance in the course). In each of these studies, we found that endorsement of mastery goals positively predicted students’ interest in the course and that endorsement of performance-approach goals positively predicted students’ final grades in the course. Thus, each goal was linked to a valued, albeit different, outcome, and our results suggest support for the multiple goal perspective because both goals were predictive of important academic outcomes in this context.

Introductory classes at our university, however, may reflect a classroom environment in which performance-approach goals are particularly adaptive. These classes are taught as large lectures, use multiple choice exams to evaluate students’ learning, and assign grades based on normative curves. Competence is clearly defined in terms of relative ability and normative comparisons. Thus, a performance-approach goal orientation may be well matched to this type of context. This idea is consistent with the matching hypothesis advanced by Harackiewicz and Sansone (1991) that goal effects may depend on the general context in which goals are pursued. This is a point that we have recognized and acknowledged in discussions of our findings. For example, in the discussion of our first achievement goal paper (Harackiewicz et al., 1997), we offered this conclusion: “Even if mastery goals do not promote performance in this context [the introductory college classroom], we would expect to see positive effects of mastery goals in smaller, more advanced classes where coursework is more likely to require deep processing, thoughtful integration of materials, and sustained effort and involvement.” (p. 1293). Therefore, like Midgley et al. (2001), we too questioned the circumstances under which performance-approach goals are beneficial. In other words, exploring the external validity of our previous work and whether such findings can be generalized to other types of college classroom contexts is an essential next step in our research program.

Therefore, our primary objective in the current study was to move beyond the introductory college classroom, and conduct a study of students enrolled in advanced undergraduate psychology seminars. In this setting, we could evaluate the consequences of achievement goals in less competitive and more mastery-oriented classroom environments. These advanced seminars were small, discussion-oriented classes on specialized topics in psychology, with an emphasis on student participation and projects. Evaluation was based on papers, presentations, group projects, and essay exams rather than curved, multiple-choice exams. We expected that this classroom environment was better matched to a mastery goal orientation and that mastery goals might be associated with more positive outcomes as a result. Specifically, the assignments in these advanced seminars required students to process course information at a much deeper level, and to integrate and synthesize course material in papers and presentations. This stands in stark contrast to the typical, large-lecture class in which students take notes passively and are tested with multiple-choice exams that assess superficial understanding of the material. A central tenet of the mastery goal perspective is that adoption of a mastery goal promotes deeper processing strategies, whereas adoption of a performance goal promotes adoption of more superficial learning strategies (e.g., see Elliot, McGregor, & Gable, 1999; Nolen, 1988). Thus, the primary objective of the current paper was to evaluate whether or not the pattern that we have found in introductory college courses would replicate in more advanced college courses. In addition to collecting measures of mastery goals and performance-approach goals, we also collected measures of work avoidance goals to replicate our previous findings. Work avoidance goals reflect the desire to minimize effort in achievement settings (Brophy, 1983; Nicholls, 1989), and in contrast to the effects of performance goals, much less debate exists about the maladaptive consequences of adopting work avoidance goals in a particular course.

Because we were extending our investigation to explore the effects of achievement goals in a different type of college classroom context, a secondary objective of the current study was to develop a measure of perceived classroom climate. Achievement goal researchers have typically adopted one of two strategies to evaluate and assess the effects of mastery and performance goals. In the first approach (which we will refer to as personally adopted achievement goals throughout the paper), students are asked to report the goals that they personally see themselves pursuing in their coursework. This is the approach that we have taken in all of our previous goal research (e.g., Harackiewicz, Barron, Carter, Lehto and Elliot, 1997, Harackiewicz, Barron, Tauer, Carter and Elliot, 2000, Harackiewicz, Barron, Tauer and Elliot, 2002b). In the second approach (which we will refer to as perceived climate goals throughout the paper), students are asked to report the goals that they think are emphasized in their classroom environment, which are assessed through perceived classroom climate measures. A number of classroom climate measures currently exist (e.g., Patterns of Adaptive Learning Questionnaire (PALS); Midgley et al., 1996) but most were developed for use with noncollege populations.2

Therefore, we generated an initial pool of items that would be more appropriate for assessing college classroom climate. We based our items on Ames’ (1992) review of the achievement goal literature in which she identified the salient classroom structures linked to influencing mastery or performance goal motivation (namely how the task, authority, evaluation, and recognition were structured in the class). We set out to identify the extent to which a classroom environment promoted a mastery goal climate and the extent to which it promoted a performance goal climate. We developed independent measures of mastery and performance goals existing at the classroom climate level, which we used to test whether the current classroom environments were indeed more mastery oriented than performance oriented. We also extended our own prior work by examining the effects of perceived classroom climate measures on our outcome measures, as well as simultaneously examining the effects of personally adopted achievement goals, perceived classroom climate, and the possibility of interactions between personally adopted achievement goals and perceived classroom climate. We were particularly interested in testing matching effects (suggested by Harackiewicz & Sansone, 1991), by examining whether pursuit of particular personally adopted goals was more or less adaptive depending on the perceived goal climate. In other words, according to the matching goal hypothesis, if the perceived climate is mastery goal-oriented, optimal motivation should occur for students who personally adopt mastery goals in that context. In contrast, if the perceived climate is performance-goal oriented, optimal motivation may occur for students who personally adopt performance-approach goals.

Participants and setting

Two-hundred and five college students (140 females and 65 males) enrolled in Senior Capstone courses in the Department of Psychology at the University of Wisconsin-Madison volunteered to participate. No additional compensation was given. Students were recruited from all 10 senior capstone courses being offered one semester, and all students were senior psychology majors. Senior capstone courses are required for all psychology majors, and thus these are not highly selective courses (e.g., taken

Descriptive and correlational analyses

The means, standard deviations, and possible ranges for each of the measures are reported in Table 4, and zero-order correlations between measures are reported in Table 5. Regarding personally adopted achievement goals, students reported pursuing mastery goals the most (M=5.93, SD=.93), followed by performance-approach goals (M=4.69, SD=1.39) and then work-avoidance goals (M=2.80, SD=1.25). Regarding perceived classroom climate measures, students reported that their senior capstone courses

Discussion

Our primary objective in this research was to evaluate whether the pattern of achievement goal effects observed in our earlier investigations of introductory college courses (Harackiewicz, Barron, Carter, Lehto and Elliot, 1997, Harackiewicz, Barron, Tauer, Carter and Elliot, 2000, Harackiewicz, Barron, Tauer and Elliot, 2002b) would replicate in more advance college courses. We and others (Midgley et al., 2001; Midgley, Middleton, Gheen, & Kumar, 2002) have recognized that the benefits of

Conclusion

The debate between the mastery and multiple goal perspectives will continue, as it should. It is helping us focus on the limitations of our existing measures and research designs to draw more definitive conclusions (Harackiewicz & Barron, 2003). It has stimulated new research with new methods in a variety of educational contexts. We look forward to the emerging developments as each side challenges the other. But for now, we can offer additional evidence of adaptive benefits of pursuing